[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/23/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/23/96 [16:52] Aco
[ref001]
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/23/96
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/23/96
[16:52] Acolyte (st_aidan@199.171.190.3) joined #apologetics.
[16:52] qaz (qaz@hh-labmac2.csh.uiuc.edu) joined #apologetics.
[16:52] I would like to discuss such issues.
[16:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip32.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[16:53] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[16:53] sure.
[16:53] hopefully he will get the point
[16:53] hmm
[16:54] Why isnt debate allowed there?
[16:54] pascoe whats he doing?
[16:54] just sittin' there. 8)
[16:54] qaz channel rules, Don't ask me, I
did not make them
[16:54] cool!
[16:54] understood.
[16:54] pascoe if he argues kick himover here
[16:55] qaz qhats on your mind?
[16:55] qaz: debate is allowed but it has to
be about biblical content. even fellowship is allowed.
but there is a priority structure for the conversations
in #bible.
[16:55] qaz Apologetics is my channel so things
a are a TAD bit different
[16:55] About the "our" in the scripture..
[16:56] and the 'we' and other plural references
to God.
[16:56] what about them?
[16:56] 'It exists in the Quraan, in the Bible,
and in the Torah, etc.
[16:56] quz it is not always plural
[16:56] Point taken
[16:56] But when it is...
[16:56] the word Elohim or El can mean gods,
God or goddesses
[16:57] depends onthe context
[16:57] and syntax
[16:57] It is used as a term of repect, NOT literall
as refering to more than one entity.
[16:57] That is how it works in Hebrew, Arabic,
and such languages.
[16:58] Elysium (clayton@XMAN.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU) joined
#apologetics.
[16:58] qaz it is pluarlity of glory, not necessarily
one of being
[16:58] oh whatfun
[16:58] look who it is
[16:58] When translated into English, I can see
how people might take it to mean as if it weere reffereing
to more than one god.
[16:58] Action: Elysium extends the right fist of fellowship
to acolyte.
[16:58] Elysium!clayton@XMAN.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU kicked
by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: POW
[16:58] hehe
[16:59] Elysium (clayton@XMAN.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU) joined
#apologetics.
[16:59] ][XQUS (mondar@cs1-16.sun.ptd.net) joined #apologetics.
[16:59] Early translators: WHo can this we be reffering
to? God, and...? Maybe Jesus? YES! and who else...?
Holy Spirit? YES. THAT MUST BE IT. ! This is flawed
reasoning....
[16:59] qaz that is not the reason at all
[16:59] I've had some interesting conversations
about mind; you know, even though you disagree on the
existence of god, there's a lot you and objectivists
have in common acolyte.
[16:59] qaz what religion r u?
[17:00] And not something which somany christioans
should blindly believe in or try so hard to prove (Im
trying not to offend you too much)
[17:00] Elysium, to some degree. Ayn Rand is
weak tho
[17:00] qaz what religion r u?
[17:00] I disagree with all forms of mysticism;
even atheistic mysticism.
[17:00] muslim (CAENrufou@ibm580.ensicaen.ismra.fr)
joined #apologetics.
[17:00] I am a Muslim. Maybe thats why I am objectivistic.
[17:00] Replacing god with "objective morality"
wont do.
[17:00] <][XQUS> ahhh, welcome muslim
[17:01] salaa, ya muslim
[17:01] Salaam! and peace!
[17:01] elysium please excuse me for now
[17:01] <][XQUS> shalom muslim
[17:01] man those people cant even rationally
discuss..
[17:01] <][XQUS> :)
[17:01] elysium we can discus this later
[17:01] The easiest way to verify atheism is
for god to show up
[17:01] running already?
[17:01] Action: Elysium grins.
[17:01] muslim I can, whats on your mind?
[17:01] That'd verify the falsity of atheism.'
[17:02] Rather, the falsity of strong atheism.
[17:02] Mode change '+b *!*clayton@*WHARTON.UPENN.EDU
' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[17:02] we discussiing about trinity..
[17:02] Elysium (clayton@XMAN.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU) left
#apologetics.
[17:02] yes
[17:02] what about Servetus?
[17:02] I am very familair with him
[17:02] Im trying to continue that thread...
[17:02] of trinity...
[17:03] Madmaxx (kingsmac@dialup8.cnetech.com) joined
#apologetics.
[17:03] madmaxx u Muslim too?
[17:03] Jewish if anything
[17:03] <][XQUS> shalom madmaxx
[17:04] <][XQUS> shalom aleichem
[17:04] Shalom
[17:04] shalom, madmax
[17:04] Muslimwhat about servetus?
[17:04] Muslim are you Sunni or Shi'ite?
[17:04] u guys wanted to know about servetus..
[17:04] muslim u mentioned him, whatis your
point about him?
[17:05] Topic changed by Acolyte!st_aidan@199.171.190.3:
The Home of Rational Christian Theism
[17:05] Im ahlus-sunnah wal jamaah
[17:05] speak english
[17:05] please
[17:05] i am 'Muslim'(submitter to the singular
Creator of this entire Universe) plain and simple..
[17:05] if it means anything.
[17:05] muslim are you Sufi, Shi'ite or Sunni?
or Bahai?
[17:05] muslim I know what the term means
[17:05] muslims why did you bring up servetus?
[17:06] Acolyte- you said the Talmud supported
the concept of resurrection and when I asked for specific
references u said to look it up.
[17:06] Are bahai'is muslim too? hmm. They believe
in prophets after Muhgammad=not muslims. IMHO
[17:06] oh..ok..well servetus found no biblical
basis for the trinitarian concept...and..
[17:06] logos5 (pasc8891@hidden.cs.uidaho.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[17:06] snowman (KPeek@www-12-14.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[17:06] muslim, that is Servetus thought, so?
[17:06] ]]ecc12 7
[17:06] ECCLESIASTES 12:7 then the dust will
return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will
return to God who gave it. --NASB
[17:07] madmaxx it is a simple FACT of history
that the pre-christian Phrasees belioved in the literal
Resurrection, its in the Talmud
[17:07] muslim: please explain these verses....
[17:07] ]]is42 8
[17:07] ISAIAH 42:8 "I am the \Lord\, that is
My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My
praise to graven images. --NASB
[17:07] snowman (KPeek@www-12-14.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[17:07] muslim did you ever bother to Read
John Calvin's reponse to Servetus?
[17:07] ]]heb1 3
[17:07] HEBREWS 1:3 And He is the radiance of
His glory and the exact representation of His nature,
and upholds all things by the word of His power. When
He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty on hi
gh; --NASB
[17:07] The reason I ask for specific references
is that I may not interpret the same passage the way
I do.
[17:07] he proved from biblical basis that Jesuss
was a prophet and there was only one GOD ...he wrote
'the errors of Trinity' ....and this guy was burned
at the stake for his unitarian ideas...
[17:07] madmaxx fine, but it is a FACT of history
that the pre-christian pharasees did hold to it.
[17:07] Madmaxx: if there is no resurrection,
then Jesus was not resurrected and we are still in
our sin.
[17:08] muslim and Calvin Refuted his work
[17:08] muslim: please respond to the verse
above.
[17:08] We are not in sin.
[17:08] Muslim have you read Servetus AND Calvin?
[17:09] ]]1jo1 8
[17:09] 1JOHN 1:8 If we say that we have no
sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not
in us. --NASB
[17:09] ]]rom3 23
[17:09] ROMANS 3:23 for all have sinned and
fall short of the glory of God, --NASB
[17:09] I believe that Christianity has completely
mis-interpreted what Jesus was trying to say.
[17:09] see..i really cant..u have to remember
that time and this time...there are now over 1000 versions
of the bible now...the bible has been extricable changed
since then ..
[17:09] mad and gee you got it right after
2000 yrs eh?
[17:09] MacBinary (ircle@dial196163.wbm.ca) joined
#apologetics.
[17:09] Madmaxx: the truth is not in you if
you say you have no sin.
[17:09] muslim, have you read Bucaille's bk?
[17:09] hi
[17:09] Muslim I have
[17:10] <][XQUS> madmaxx: tell me is the God of Abraham
the God of the dead or the living?
[17:10] muslim: so your only option at this
point is flat denial since you cannot respond to the
clear words?
[17:10] Maurice?
[17:10] qaz yes Maurice Bucaille
[17:10] I believe that what i believe in makes
more sense.
[17:10] have you read it?
[17:10] hey mac
[17:10] I ve read it, yes.
[17:10] Madmaxx: so you have made up a religion
that suits you? cute.
[17:10] qaz its a joke of a bk
[17:10] Yes, I have ..briefly looked at it...im
not saying that the bible doesnt carry any truth anymore..there
is still some truth left in it..but overall it has
been dealt with it..
[17:10] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics.
[17:11] muslim: so your only option at this
point is flat denial since you cannot respond to the
clear words?
[17:11] why?
[17:11] qaz See Norman Giesler "Answering Islam"
for a full refutation of Bucaille
[17:11] No. I have a religion that makes sense
out of life and why we are here.
[17:11] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics.
[17:11] Madmaxx: the truth is not in you if
you say you have no sin.
[17:11] Okay, ill have to do that.
[17:11] muslim the Bible has not been changed.
Sure there are errors in transmission but they are
minimal
[17:11] madmaxx what religion is that?
[17:11] What about this comets of ice thing i just
read about?
[17:11] No one has "sin " in the Christian sense.
[17:12] muslim well I have read BOTH servetus
AND Calvin. Calvin totally refuted Servetus
[17:12] ]]1jo1 8
[17:12] 1JOHN 1:8 If we say that we have no
sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not
in us. --NASB
[17:12] We are all here to learn.
[17:12] bu, might I add..there is a versee in
the bible that still exists which tells the coming
of the last prophet Mohammad ..and i can outline that...
[17:12] madmaxx the Fathers think you are wrong.
[17:12] thats along the same lines as Bucailles
booklet.
[17:12] muslim, are you going to answer ANY
of my questions?
[17:12] qaz what is?
[17:13] Hey, the Fathers are free to think
what they think and I am free to think what I think.
[17:13] acolyte: what was ur question..?
[17:13] muslim (CAENrufou@ibm580.ensicaen.ismra.fr)
left irc: Read error to muslim[ibm580.ensicaen.ismra.fr]:
EOF from client
[17:13] muslim, have you read Servetus and
Calvin's works? yes or no?
[17:13] Madmaxx: you are free to make up a
god for youself too, but it can't save you.
[17:13] That is one thing I have learned -
I have no need to judge another's religion.
[17:13] ]]jn3 18
[17:13] JOHN 3:18 "He who believes in Him is
not judged; he who does not believe has been judged
already, because he has not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God. --NASB
[17:14] Madmaxx: Jesus judged every religion.
He said He was the only way to the Father.
[17:14] ]]jn14 6
[17:14] JOHN 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the
way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the
Father, but through Me. --NASB
[17:14] No, his followers claimed that.
[17:14] Madmaxx: those are Jesus' own words.
[17:14] Ill try to summarize it, and give you details
later: In the Quran, it is mentioned rain is formed
in the sky and sent down from clouds. But it also mentions
"He sends down from the heavens mountains wherein is
hail" recently, this was proven by two scientists. Actual
comets of hail, 100 tons each 19 per min hit the earth
[17:15] Madmaxx: unless you flatly deny them,
since you cannot agree with them.
[17:15] <][XQUS> his followers claimed it because they
remembered Jesus claiming that
[17:15] qaz so?
[17:15] Jesus came only to his people, the
lost sheep of Israel.
[17:15] Madmaxx: Jesus came to take away the
sins of the world.
[17:15] pascoe-no, they are words put in his
mouth.
[17:15] qaz demons know that too. So?
[17:16] ][XQUS (mondar@cs1-16.sun.ptd.net) left #apologetics.
[17:16] Madmaxx: so your only option is to
deny the clear words since they oppose you directly?
[17:16] This goes to explain the scientific factuality
of the Quran, and the fact that it is divine scripture
not written by Muhammad.
[17:16] as opposed to the bible
[17:16] qaz, did demons know about Commets?
[17:17] I haven spoke to em, so wouldnt have an
idea.
[17:17] youre point?
[17:17] qaz: Muhammad wrote about Jesus things
which were contrary to the account of eyewitnesses
of Christ. Muhammad has no authority to speak about
Jesus when he contradicts eyewitness testimony.
[17:17] qaz is God the only one who knew about
commets at that time?
[17:18] No. I believe his words have been twisted
by those who wished to have their version of Jesus
"come out on top".
[17:18] Yes, he was the only one who new about
comets of ice being sent form space to give water to
the earth, as far as i know.
[17:18] Madmaxx: but you have not one shred
of evidence to support your empty claim. the *only*
reason you dismiss the words is because the contradict
the religion you have made up for yourself. 8(
[17:18] qaz comments did not deliver water
tot he earth. Commets are composed of gases, rocks
and water vapor. it is simply a THEORY that comets
did is all. Not a fact
[17:18] Muhammad couldnt have gone to the scientific
fountainhead in the Byzantine or whatever and gotten
that.
[17:19] Not according to Dr. Loius Frank and Dr.
Yeates. do you want details?
[17:19] muslim (guest@apache.wildstar.net) joined #apologetics.
[17:19] Back..
[17:19] qaz: how could Muhammad have been so
wrong on the events of Jesus' birth then?
[17:19] acolyte r u christian?
[17:20] Maybe he wasnt wrong. maybe the "eyewitness
accounts" are wrong, or have been changed.
[17:20] By the way, pascoe, read Matthew 15:
24. They are his own words.
[17:20] MacBinary (ircle@dial196163.wbm.ca) left #apologetics.
[17:20] qaz: so you think I should believe
Muhammad who never even saw Jesus over the testimony
of several eyewitnesses of Christ who actually walked
with Him>
[17:20] Why not look at that flip side also, instaed
of assuming the Quran is wrong?
[17:20] ]]mat15 24
[17:20] brb
[17:20] MATTHEW 15:24 But He answered and said,
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
--NASB
[17:21] hold on a second
[17:21] And it doesn't have to be taken out
of context.
[17:21] muslim yes I am a christian
[17:21] 'Yes, becaUSE it isnt muhammad who is saying
these thing in the Quran, but God. Things like the
"comets of ice" thing I state to prove that.
[17:21] qaz maybe maybe maybe,so what abotu
MAYBE
[17:21] Madmaxx: This means that Jesus did
not visit every nation. He sent His disciples to the
nations. But Jesus came to take away all sin and die
once for all of it.
[17:21] qaz how do you know the quaran is the
word of God?
[17:22] r u a trinitarian?
[17:22] muslim yes
[17:22] Are you denying HIS OWN WORDS>
[17:22] Muslim I am THE bastion of Trinitarianism
on IRC
[17:22] sheesh. It contains a challeng to bring
one verse like it, which hasnt been met.
[17:22] becuz of its perfection, consistency
and rationality with known facts, science..and etc..
[17:22] qaz so?
[17:22] qaz why do I need to do that to prove
it wrong?
[17:23] find some factual proof that contradicts
the quran. not "eye witness accounts."
[17:23] muslim, something can be consistent
and stillbe wrong. Mathmatical systems can he completely
consistent and still have nothing todo with reality
[17:23] if any thinkinh human being would look
into the quran..one would see its consistency and rationality
...the Quran challenges the reader..
[17:23] It doesnt contain internal contradictions
like the bible, yet you calim the bibl as a book of
god?
[17:23] qaz you mean non historical?
[17:23] That statement ius more definite than
anything Jesus has to say about being God made flesh.
[17:23] Madmaxx: if you are arguing that Jesus
only saves Israel then you are mistaken because Jesus
sent His disciples into the whole world.
[17:23] qaz wanna bet?
[17:23] I got one here
[17:24] hold on
[17:24] let me get it
[17:24] acolyte: have u read the whole of the
Quran?
[17:24] muslim yes I have
[17:24] hold on
[17:24] Then why did he say it?
[17:25] how can u make a judgement of something
u have not even looked into or read..?
[17:25] Not once but twice.
[17:25] MUS:LIM I AHAVE RAED THE QURAN
[17:25] I HAVE READ THE QURAN
[17:25] madmaxx: u have read the Quran?
[17:25] CAN YOU READ THIS????
[17:25] okay, okay
[17:25] i have read it A-Z?
[17:25] Madmaxx: Jesus visited God's chosen
people and not every nation. Jesus sent out His disciples
to the other nations.
[17:25] yes.
[17:25] muslim cover to cover
[17:25] muslim-no
[17:26] which translation..?
[17:26] Acolyte: the trasnslation, or in Arabic,
understanding it?
[17:26] Did the man say those words or not?
[17:26] ]]mat15 24
[17:26] MATTHEW 15:24 But He answered and said,
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
--NASB
[17:26] If the translation, whoose translation?
[17:26] qaz I read it in English, I figured
God can get his message clear in English.
[17:26] Madmaxx: Jesus said those words.
[17:26] qaz Penguin Books, standard English
translation
[17:26] Then what did he mean.
[17:27] Of course he can, but it wouldnt have been
much use to a ppl that speak Arabic, not english, no?
[17:27] how did u find reading it?
[17:27] ]]jn17 21
[17:27] Please See Sura 7:54 and 32:4 and Sura
41:9-12
[17:27] And he chose arabic because of its depth
and eloquency which cannot be matched by english
[17:27] Okay,, hold on.
[17:27] qaz perhaps
[17:28] perhaps definitely
[17:28] JOHN 17:21 that they may all be one;
even as Thou, Father, {art} in Me, and I in Thee, that
they also may be in Us; that the world may believe
that Thou didst send Me. --NASB
[17:28] At the least, Jesus then contradicted
himself.
[17:28] qaz perhaps not definately
[17:28] Madmaxx: Jesus also said the words
in Jn17:21 'that the world may believe'
[17:28] okay, hold on. let me load it up.
[17:29] PatriciaJ (CRHPFW@bos1f.delphi.com) joined
#apologetics.
[17:29] Then at the least, he contradicted
himself.
[17:29] muslim (guest@apache.wildstar.net) left irc:
Leaving
[17:29] madmaxx it is easy Jesus was sent to
isreal because they were first to hear ebcause of their
past with God, THEN he sent others when they Rejected
him to the Gentiles
[17:29] Madmaxx: just because you don't care
to understand does not mean Jesus contradicted Himself.
Jesus also said He was the bread of life.
[17:29] please say the lines again?
[17:29] Please See Sura 7:54 and 32:4 and Sura
41:9-12
[17:29] |